On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 8:43 PM Zhijie Hou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov11, 2026 at 01:04 AM Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2026 at 05:17:57PM +0800, Zhijie Hou wrote:
>
> Thanks for catching this. I confirmed that this can happen.
>
> Since any temporary slot that reaches a consistent snapshot is persisted
> immediately in the same cycle, we can check "else if
> (slot->data.persistency == RS_TEMPORARY)" here instead. Attached is the
> v2 patch with this change.
>
+ else if (slot->data.persistency == RS_TEMPORARY)
+ {
+ /*
+ * We reach this point when a previous cycle updated confirmed_flush
+ * but failed to build a consistent snapshot, and the remote slot has
+ * not advanced beyond the local slot since then.
+ */
+ skip_reason = SS_SKIP_NO_CONSISTENT_SNAPSHOT;
+ }
Is it better to directly use the slot's skip_reason rather than
assuming SS_SKIP_NO_CONSISTENT_SNAPSHOT? I understand today it is
correct but tomorrow if there are more reasons, it would be better to
rely on the slot's value.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
